Arnie and his enviro cronies screwed us--AGAIN

[Gino]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

Well, polls show that the majority likes the MLPA

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lm...oll_demon.html

Voters, by pushing for ultra tough sentencing for non-violent crimes. Yeah it feels nice, but then you gotta pay the cost of housing those people.



Err, the tea party rant that "government is evil" is not an acknowledgment of government decision making...it's a rant.

Also, fun fact; privatizing prisons increases cost. Prop 19 would actually help reduce prison costs because people would stop getting jailed for pot posession.

\


acually the prisons cost so much becuase of the Prison Gaurds Union. That was Jerry Brown, he did that one some Eons ago..

The guys getting thrown into prison for Pot are the big pushers or illegal smugglers... Not the average guy with a dime sack. Jail and Prison are completely differant. If your smuggling out of country thats Federal offense. the states prop 19 wont save that guy.


Way off topic.

[The Kid]

I cant use that poll info that you provided to justify your reasoning. it is biased in my opinion. But 7% of tax dollars spent on education really versus 11% for prisons? anyways lets leave that one out back to topic

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

the poll was designed by an anti-MLPA group...how much less biased against your direction can it be?

this poll that you used i found another part you forgot to mention. the same organization that did this study also said this.

"The Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries (ACSF) has released the results of a national public opinion poll revealing the public’s attitudes about ocean conservation which found that the public strongly wants the ocean to be protected, but not with total marine closures.

Respondents expressed a reluctance to place the ocean off limits to human use if those areas and the resources can be used sustainably. The public does support placing areas off limits to all human use, but only if it is to protect rare and fragile habitats, where no sustainable use is possible. And researchers found that the level of support for both commercial and recreational fishing remains strong.

“The public doesn’t support laws or regulations that hurt the nation’s small, independent fishermen or recreational fishing activities,” said Vern Goehring, manager of the California Fisheries Coalition. “They want smart management of marine ecosystems, not total ocean closures that hurt local economies.”
http://www.alliancefisheries.com/pub...22%202009.html

the info was translated into an article that was biased and left out information pertinent to the subject.

[ZUMAN]

This ASSCLOWN is also starting crap and getting threads locked
on scsurffishing as well

http://www.scsurffishing.com/forums/...ic.php?t=64606

[cabojohn]

Stan,
Go pour yourself a nice tall glass of bleach & draino mix and drink up.

**I hope you have the pleasure of running into some of the nice guys here surf fishing.


IB4TL
(that's one for me Steveo)


EDIT- looks like Stan got the ban hammer. Good riddens.

[steveooo]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

So what's the problem with the MLPA?

Disregarding your previous posts- I'll try to break it down to one of the basic, basic problems. There are deeper problems, but I'll just keep it simple and address your question from my perspective.

You appear to be a surf fisherman? Nice corbie and leo from your previous posts.





What beaches did you catch them on? Are they special beaches to you? Good memories there? Nice variety of fish? Have you seen whether those beaches are affected by the proposed MPA's? That would suck for you if they were closed, no?

You ever shore fish any other areas? Laguna Beach up in the OC? I fish there pretty frequently. Its awesome up there. A couple of reasons why I love it there
1- I've Never been dealt the Helmet, even if I only swing by for a quick 10 min lunch session.
2- Cool variety of fish- You never know what could be on the end of your line
3- Awesome coastline.
4- My wife caught her first surf fish there
5- Its got good family friendly beaches that I can bring my wife and daughter to, and spend a few minutes surf fishing.

Laguna is very special to me for many reasons.

Unfortunately, if you've never been up to fish @ Laguna, you better do it quickly. It's on the chopping block. Which part? The whole part. Based off of what scientific data? A few old ladies that go swimming and claim that they are seeing less fish there than they did in the 80's.

You asked for specific reasons- That is just one. There are plenty of guys that have their favorite fishing spot, especially kayak accessible spots, on the chopping block through this whole process. I think the frustration you are seeing is that the guys that were involved in the process from early on, saw how little the input from the public really mattered, and that there were other intentions that were driving the process.

If those beaches that you caught your Corbie and PB Leopard on were in danger of being put on the "No Fishing" list, would you speak up to fight for them Stan? If you actually spoke up to save them, and then found out what you care about doesn't really matter to those running this process, would that frustrate you?

I'm seriously asking those last two questions and would like your honest answer Stan, not just hypothetically throwing them out there to prove a point.

And for the record- Steveooo in IN on this thread before it gets locked

[steveooo]

Originally Posted by steveooo

If those beaches that you caught your Corbie and PB Leopard on were in danger of being put on the "No Fishing" list, would you speak up to fight for them Stan? If you actually spoke up to save them, and then found out what you care about doesn't really matter to those running this process, would that frustrate you?

Originally Posted by Stan K G

The beaches were on the block in earlier proposals, it would have sucked, but we have hundreds of MILES of great fishing beach up and down the coast and I know several great spots. I don't get emotionallly attached to a section of beach...lets me move around to find good fishing rather than get stuck if a beach is having a bad week.

So what you are saying is that you would just bend over and take it in the ass, while they took your fishing spots from you?
My guess is that this is not the first time you have bent over to take something in the A--

Originally Posted by Stan K G

Try dana point, it's supposed to be great from reports I've seen

Welcome to the board Stan, I fish Dana a good amount. Its decent there. I hope to fish with you one day there,

Bring your fly rod and your busted fishfinder.
Seriously....

For the record, Steveooo was in on this thread before it was locked 2x

[The Kid]

Let me make this statement. From the time that the MLPA was dug back up from the dust covered shelves in the capital, and brought back to haunt the this generation of fisherman I have always been curious as to why the first course of action to encourage growth rates of pelagics, such as yellowtail, would not be taken into consideration before a complete closure was deemed the best option. The top option that should have and maybe or maybe not considered is to limit the keep of such species. For example in the white seabass restoration project, which I am sure you know about, is the perfect example for a successful restoration project. There is an obvious boom in populations presently and if you dont believe me heres some numbers for you page 33(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/wsfmp/pdfs/wsfmp.pdf). If the take was restricted and length limits or slot limits were enforced would that not allowing for adequate breeding aged fish, boosting fish populations simply by increasing a certain species biomass in any ecosystem.
Is that not a valid reason to question the MLPA? To go to the most extreme restriction while spending 30 -40 million dollars a year to fund this program isn't that strange as well. Our government is corrupted there is no doubt about that. Who is getting the short end of the stick? The fisherman who are out there for sport while at the same time using the resources given them for their family who are spending their days stuck making enough to buy a kayak while keeping their family safe and have enough money to send off to our politicians who are are making this country more and more in debt with each breathe I take. Some of us don't make the same amount of money as are "trusted" politicians. So who in this day and age has the swing in the vote. If I stepped up to a podium at the capital and said my peace and during my speech Sigourney Weaver shakes her head in disagreement who is going to have the greater influence. Now to say this analogy is absurd is false in several meetings this is exactly what is going on. With many members appointed in the regional stakeholder group (RSG), a science advisory team (SAT), the California Department of Fish and Game, MLPA Initiative staff, the public and a policy-level blue ribbon task force (BRTF) simply in their head passing off fisherman public comments because they don't have a fancy title to show importance. So I ask you MLPA supporters, in this debate what is fair? To shut off local saltwater fishing (the productive areas of course), or to limit it. Both we assume to have the same results the only concern is time. Sure it may take longer, but if you keep both sides happy is not more productive than pleasing one side and having anarchy and resentment within your community?